The court ruled that inconsistent treatment of claimants by the State in land acquisition cases constitutes discrimination, affirming the reference court's award of additional compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Nisha M. Thakore, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. K.M. Sheth for the respondents-original claimants.

2. The present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the State Authorities. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.07.2012 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Reference Case No.205 of 2011, whereby the reference court has partly allowed the reference case, holding the original claimants entitled to an amount of Rs.248.12/- per sq. mtrs of the acquired lands as an additional compensation over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The reference court has also held the claimants entitled to get increase at the rate of 12% interest per annum from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 24.04.2008 till the date of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e. up to 03.06.2010 as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The claimants are also held entitled to get 30% solatium and running interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of one year from the date of taking over the possession of the acquired lands, and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum on the aggregated amount i.e. the additional awarded amount, solatium and 12% increase under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, till the entire is paid or deposited.

3. The facts of the case are briefly summarized as under:

3.1 The original claimants are affected land owners, whose lands situated at village Kaliyari, Taluka-Jambusar, District- Bharuch, were acquired for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Kaliyari Branch Minor Canal under Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. The Notification declaring such intention of acquisition of the proposed lands was published under Section 4 of the Act on 24.04.2008 followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 23.10.2008. The opportunity was given to the affected parties including the claimants. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after considering their objections, had passed an award dated 03.06.2010 in Land Acquisition Case No.01 of 2008 in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the claimants were awarded the amount of Rs.267/- per Are for the acquired lands.

3.2 The affected parties including lands owners had approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking reference for additional amount of compensation as against the aforesaid award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The reference cases were presented before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, which were registered on 06.08.2011 as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.205 to 212 of 2011. The learned Civil Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, by impugned judgment and award dated 25.07.2012, was pleased to partly allow the reference, holding the claimants entitled to get additional amount of compensation of Rs.248.12/- per sq. mtrs. for the acquired lands with all statutory benefits. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State.

4. The matter was taken up for final hearing, at the request of learned advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth appearing for the respondents-original claimants, on the ground that initially the group of appeals were preferred by the State against the same impugned judgment and award, and out of the aforesaid group of matters, except for the present appeal, rest of the appeals have been settled in the Lok Adalat, whereby the State has accepted the impugned judgment and award determining the additional compensation of the acquired lands.

5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. K.M. Sheth appearing for the respondents-original claimants, has placed on record the comparative ch